Bills
Bill 4 - Dangerous Goods Transportation and Handling
Introduction
Second Reading
Final Reading
Bill 9 - Local Authorities Election Statutes
Province of Alberta
Third Session
The Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Introduction of Bills
The Speaker: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose.
Bill 4
Dangerous Goods Transportation and Handling
Amendment Act, 2010
Mr. Olson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to request leave to introduce Bill 4, and that’s the Dangerous Goods Transportation and Handling Amendment Act, 2010. Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation for industry.
It doesn’t add regulatory burden for industry. It actually provides some protection to industry by harmonizing our legislation with
federal legislation which was amended in June of 2009. The rules already exist in federal legislation, mandated by the federal government, but matching our legislation with the federal legislation as much as possible helps to achieve standard conditions for the movement of dangerous goods within provinces and across Canada. By mirroring the federal legislation, we’re able to ensure our place in enforcing the rules and monitoring industry. If we don’t mirror the federal legislation, we run the risk of losing our jurisdiction over industry in Alberta and our ability to enforce these rules the way we see appropriate. The legislation actually provides some protection to industry here in Alberta. The changes are minor and mainly administrative in nature. As I say, this legislation will ensure to industry that it continues to be business as usual in Alberta. [Motion carried; Bill 4 read a first time]
Excerpted from Alberta Hansard
February 18, 2010
head:
Province of Alberta
Third Session
The Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Orders of the Day
Government Bills and Orders
Second Reading
Bill 4
Dangerous Goods Transportation and Handling
Amendment Act, 2010
Mr. Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to move second reading of Bill 4, the Dangerous Goods Transportation and Handling Amendment Act, 2010. As I outlined when I introduced this bill several days ago, this is an important bill for industry. In essence, the act is just being refreshed, though, to ensure that Alberta’s legislation is consistent with federal legislation. That federal legislation is the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, which was amended in June of 2009. Components of this bill, the Dangerous Goods Transportation and Handling Amendment Act, 2010, include giving Alberta the ability to require security plans for certain prescribed dangerous goods, requiring shippers to report lost and stolen shipments of dangerous goods, clarification of details for the manufacture and use of containers used in the transportation of dangerous goods, and introduction of an administrative penalty option that would enable
Alberta Transportation and industry to deal with noncompliance issues outside the provincial court system. This isn’t adding regulation because, largely, the regulations already exist in federal legislation, but it does provide Alberta industry with protection by creating provincial jurisdiction over these issues so that it continues to be business as usual for industry here. Matching provincial legislation to federal legislation as much as possible also helps achieve some standard conditions for movement of dangerous goods within provinces and across Canada. The changes are mainly administrative in nature and minor, but it also
helps protect our provincial jurisdiction over enforcing regulations. I urge all members to support this important legislation, and I’d ask that we now adjourn debate. Thank you.
[Motion to adjourn debate carried)
Excerpted from Alberta Hansard
February 24, 2010
Province of Alberta
Third Session
The Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Bill 4
Dangerous Goods Transportation and Handling
Amendment Act, 2010
The Chair: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose.
Mr. Olson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s my pleasure today to speak in Committee of the Whole on Bill 4, Dangerous Goods Transportation and Handling Amendment Act, 2010. I appreciate the support that has been received already for this bill in second reading. Maybe I’ll just repeat a little bit about what this bill is about. It’s pretty straightforward and simple.
In June of last year the federal government changed some of their legislation which relates to the transportation of dangerous goods. Our government feels as though it’s very important to ensure that our legislation in Alberta is harmonized with the federal legislation for a couple of reasons. One reason is to achieve continuity and some standardization across the country. So whether goods are being transported within a province or across provincial borders, those people who have to transport them and comply with regulation have a standard set of rules to follow. Secondly and very importantly, we want to make sure that Alberta preserves its jurisdiction
over the handling of dangerous goods. We see it as being very important for our people to be able to interpret and enforce the rules that are in place. The changes are relatively minor and administrative. There were some comments that were made, some concerns that were expressed
in second reading, and perhaps I could just address some of them. One of the things that I heard was that there was some concern and maybe even some suspicion that the reason for some of these changes was to cut costs, to save on staffing. There was also some question about enforcement. How are the rules going to be enforced? Again I just want to say that this is really a refreshment of the existing rules. We already have staff in place who are enforcing these rules. So that’s not really an issue, the issue of needing more staffing. As a matter of fact, it’s interesting to note that Alberta is unique in that we have our own inspectors who are interpreting and enforcing these rules. Across the country Transport Canada has 35 inspectors, and those dangerous goods inspectors are responsible for the inspections and enforcement in all of Canada, all the provinces and territories except Alberta. In Alberta we have seven inspectors
and a chief inspector, so a total of eight inspectors, who are dedicated to ensuring the safety of Albertans. So staffing to enforce these regulations is really not a concern. It’s already in place. I
would submit that we are, really, better positioned than most in terms of resources. Another issue that was raised in second reading debate was relating to time limitations. There was some concern about the time limitations that are going to be in the new set of regulations. Presently section 23 says that no action can be taken beyond two years after an offence is alleged to have been committed. The change does not exactly mirror the federal legislation, but I would
again suggest that there are good reasons for that. It differs a little bit from the rules that are being used by Transport Canada. They say that the period is five years from the date of the
offence, but they seem to interpret and consider the date of the offence to be the date when it is discovered. For the sake of clarity our legislation, this bill says that the limitation will be the later of two years from the time an offence is alleged to have been committed or two years from the day the evidence of the alleged offence first came to the attention of the director. That is a clarification. The other thing that’s important to note is that the two years is consistent with other provincial legislation such as the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. There was some comment made regarding appeals from administrative penalties. In the bill the Alberta Transportation Safety Board will be handling those appeals. There was some suggestion made
that one might not be able to get a fair hearing if they were in front of the Alberta Transportation Safety Board. I just want to say that this board already handles appeals that relate to the Traffic Safety Act and the Railway (Alberta) Act. They are an independent board. Their members have to follow a strict code of conduct. Any suggestion that one would not be fairly dealt with by such a body is really unfounded and even unfair. On the question of the administrative penalty, that is also something that is new. Some of the comment that was made in debate on second reading was that the $10,000 maximum is too high. Some suggested it was too low. A couple of things to point out about that.The intent of this administrative penalty is not that it would be used
in all cases. It’s really meant to be for the day-to-day kinds of noncompliances that often happen. It would be kind of too bad to have people spending a lot of court time and using up the court
resources for what would be considered, perhaps, less major incidents, but it’s important to note that there are other provisions still in the act – for example, in section 30 – where because of major noncompliances the courts can handle the prosecution. An example was given of the Wabamun Lake incident by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. A serious incident like that would likely be a situation where it would probably not be appropriate for the administrative penalties but for the more serious penalties, which can still be handled in the courts.
There was a question about whether or not this legislation gives the authorities the power to stop illegal or unsafe operations. I would refer the hon. member to section 12 and section 18, which do give that kind of power. So there are still plenty of teeth, I would suggest, in the existing legislation. It’s not all in the bill. The bill is just making some fairly minor changes, but the existing legislation has that kind of power to make somebody stop an activity that is causing damage or is seen to be a risk. Again, these rules already exist under federal legislation. We are
not increasing regulatory burden. I should also mention that Alberta Transportation partnered with Transport Canada in consultations throughout Alberta and, in fact, across Canada when these changes were being considered. Industry in Alberta is aware of these changes that are being proposed, and they are in support. With that, I would just like to thank all members for taking part in the debate. I urge all members to support this bill. Thank you.
The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview.
Dr. Taft: Yes. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I was listening to the comments from the Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose. I appreciated that he took the time and effort to respond to some of the issues that I and others raised in second reading. I rise today – and I’m not sure if the Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose is aware of this or not – to move an amendment on behalf of the Member for Calgary-McCall. That amendment is at the desk with the Clerk, and I’ll just wait for
it to be distributed.
The Chair: We’ll wait for the pages to deliver the amendment, and then we’ll continue. This amendment is now known as amendment A1. Hon. member, continue with amendment A1.
Dr. Taft: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 4, Dangerous Goods ransportation and Handling Amendment Act, 2010, be amended as follows: (a) sections 14 and 15 are struck out, and (b) section 16(b) is amended by striking out the proposed clause (u.3). There are, of course, reasons for this amendment, and I want to review those for people to consider as they weigh whether to vote in favour or not of this amendment. What we want to do with this
amendment is strike the section that deals with the time limit for prosecution, which is section 14, and the section that deals with administrative fees, which is section 15. Then there’s a bit of a
housekeeping change that would then need to be made to section 16. Now, the concern with section 14 about the time limit and the reason that this amendment proposes striking that out is that the time limit will stay at two years but that it will be two years after either the day of the last offence or the day on which evidence of the alleged offence came to the attention of the director; i.e., the director of the dangerous goods and rail safety branch of Alberta transportation,
whichever is later. We’ve come upon, as we’ve done our due diligence on this legislation, some concerns and controversy around this. For example, I’m told that if it were five years after an alleged offence had occurred but that the offence just then came to the attention of the director, then someone can be still prosecuted for the offence. I guess the question really arises, as it’s been put to us: do we as an Assembly really want companies or drivers or people to be liable
indefinitely? If an offence occurred 10 years ago and it only came to the attention of the director last week, then there would be a liability risk there, you know, and there is a point at which that just perhaps isn’t reasonable or isn’t fair. It also opens up a bit of a grey area about problems with proving exactly when the director was alerted to the offence. So there are issues here, and it just seems prudent to us to amend the legislation so that those issues don’t arise. One of the background or underlying concerns with this is that this particular branch of Alberta Transportation we consistently hear is inadequately staffed. If they don’t have sufficient inspectors, if they’re not out there doing their jobs enough, then often they’re not going to find offences in a timely manner. If they had sufficient staff to actually be actively policing in a way that would catch offences, then they don’t need the legislation that basically lifts any time constraints on this. We’re hearing over and over that Alberta Transportation isn’t staffed enough and that this legislation, Bill 4, is trying to sort of work around that by opening spaces or increasing time frames so that a small staff has more opportunity to do a job that they should really be doing in a timely fashion if it was sufficiently staffed. The second part of this proposed amendment on behalf of the Member for Calgary-McCall is to strike section 15 of Bill 4. Now,
section 15 is something that we ought to think about quite carefully. I’m sure the Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose, who is, after all, a thoughtful man, has probably considered section 15. When I look at section 15, the very first paragraph, page 8 of Bill 4, the following is added after section 30: Administrative penalties 30.1(1) Where the Director is of the opinion that a person
has contravened this Act, the Director may, subject to the regulations, order that person to pay to the Government an administrative penalty in the amount, not exceeding $10,000, set out in the order. I will stop quoting there because section 15 goes on at some length, and all I need to do is read that one paragraph to raise the concern. There are actually a few concerns here. This sets up a kind of quasi-judicial process and makes the director, in this case a civil servant, a kind of judge. It says in this legislation – and I want to repeat this for all MLAs to hear – “where
the Director is of the opinion that a person has contravened this Act.” Let’s think about that phrase for a minute, Mr. Chairman. We’re basically creating a kind of judicial power for a public
servant. We’re not saying anything in here about what evidence is required, what appeals are required, what else is involved here. We’re just saying that if it’s in the opinion of the director that somebody has broken the law, then bingo, that person can be fined. That’s, I think, a worry, something that we need to be very careful of. If we didn’t have this section 15 – in other words, if we voted to accept the amendment that I’ve proposed on behalf of the Member for Calgary-McCall – it wouldn’t mean that we’ve gutted the legislation. Under current legislation there are substantial penalties, and there are provisions in there for how to handle offences and fines and so on. So I’m just raising a red flag that we need to be very careful as a Legislative Assembly of creating these kinds of powers and this sort of authority outside of the court system. I think
that’s the spirit in which this amendment is proposed. I am also concerned that through section 15 as it’s proposed, we are creating administrative penalties up to $10,000. What, Mr. Chairman, is an administrative penalty? You know, we’re telling this director that he can impose an administrative penalty of up to $10,000. What’s the difference between an administrative penalty
and a fine? If somebody wants to appeal this penalty, what do they do? Does this mean that maybe somebody can actually trade off and say, “Well, you know what? I’ll pay the $10,000 administrative penalty and then I won’t have to go to court” when the risk of going to court might be $50,000? Maybe they ought to pay $50,000. In other words, is there a sort of get-out-of-jail-at-low-cost opportunity in this? There are just a whole bunch of questions around section 15 that we’re hearing concerns about, and as we’ve thought about them, we thought we should bring them to the floor of this Assembly so that all MLAs can give this serious thought. As far as our research shows, there’s nothing in the federal legislation that would necessitate administrative fees and penalties and that sort of thing. We feel that the standard of proof of a contravention of the act should be greater than merely the opinion of the director and that, frankly, a proper judicial process is perhaps wiser in this case. There simply is room for misuse and abuse in both directions here, we feel. Things could be too lenient; things could be too tough. So there is a real concern with this. That’s why this amendment proposes to delete section 15.
As a consequence of those changes, we would then have to delete section 16(b)(u.3), which simply says, “respecting administrative penalties.” That would have to be pulled out because if we abolish or strike out section 15, then there would be no administrative penalties. At least, that’s my understanding of it, Mr. Chairman. I think that with those comments I’ve sketched out the reasoning that my colleague from Calgary-McCall wanted this amendment moved. I know it’s brought forward by that member in good faith after consulting with various stakeholders. I look forward to any debate on the issue, and I’ll do my best to either respond to or to take
note of the concerns that might come forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: On amendment A1. Any other debate? The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose.
Mr. Olson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview and also the hon. Member for Calgary-McCall for the thought that they’ve put into this and for their input and comments although, regrettably, I can’t agree with
the proposed amendment. Basically the amendment is addressing two things, the issue of the
time limitation and the issue of the administrative penalties. On the issue of the time limitation any time you have a limit by which something has to happen, you know, there can be differences of opinion as to when the clock starts running. Even if we were to accept the amendment and go back to the current wording, which says, “2 years after . . . the offence is alleged to have been committed,” we would still have the issue of: well, when did that happen? Keeping in mind the nature of what we’re talking about here – environmental problems, spills, and so on – I think our government wants to make a strong statement that we will be aggressive in enforcing this legislation. We have a high expectation of people who are handling dangerous goods. I think we want to err on the side of being able to protect the environment. It’s quite plausible that there could be situations that would remain hidden and undetected for a length of time, so to have a fairly tight, narrow time frame would not be in the best of interests of protecting the environment. In the federal legislation my understanding is that the interpretation given by Transport Canada in enforcing their legislation is the same as what we are now going to say in black and white in the bill: when it “first came to the attention of the Director.” I cannot accept
that this is an issue of staffing at all, keeping in mind, again, that our resources for enforcement of these types of things are stronger, it would appear, than anywhere in Canada when you compare 35 inspectors for all of Canada, excepting Alberta, and eight for Alberta.
It’s a fair comment to say that evidence may disappear or that it may not be available after a longer period of time, but there is discretion in terms of prosecuting. Like with any offence, if you don’t have any evidence to go on, you’re probably going to be on thin ice in terms of prosecuting. Those would be my comments on section 14. Section 15, the administrative penalties. Once again, these are intended to be for less serious offences. Some attention was given to the first line of that section, about the opinion of the director. Well, I would submit that for any prosecution somebody has to have an opinion that an offence has been committed, whether it’s a police officer having reasonable and probable grounds or a health inspector.
Somebody has got to have the opinion and then carry on with the prosecution from there.
Also, there is an appeal process. If the director has been too aggressive, the person charged with noncompliance does have the right to go the Transportation Safety Board. My understanding is
that there has been good consultation with the industry. It is my understanding that this is something that the industry supported, and I can see why they would. If the only option is to be charged and have to go to court, have to spend a lot of money on legal advice and
lawyer representation, we can’t have that. You know, it seems like a good option, for things that are more what would be described as minor offences, for there to be another venue to have those issues heard and, therefore, be more user friendly for the industry, I would suggest.
Those are my submissions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity.
Excerpted from Alberta Hansard
February 24, 2010
Province of Alberta
Third Session
The Twenty-Seventh Legislature
Bill 9
Local Authorities Election Statutes
Amendment Act, 2010
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose.
Mr. Olson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of my colleague from Athabasca-Redwater I rise today to begin debate on Bill 9, the Local Authorities Election Statutes Amendment Act, 2010. I’m moving second reading. These legislative changes are proposed to improve the processes involved with municipal elections. By way of background, Mr. Speaker, in a 2008 court decision the judge noted that the act is
unclear about where a voter is to vote when they occupy more than one residence. A proposed amendment will clarify that when a voter has more than one residence, he or she may designate only one place of residence for the purposes of the act. In addition to the existing rules, the voter will determine one residence for the purpose of voting based on the following criteria: the residence address shown on the person’s Alberta Registries identification card or Alberta driver’s licence, the residence address where the person’s income tax documents are addressed and delivered, or the residence address where the person’s mail is normally addressed and delivered. This amendment will promote public confidence and integrity in the election process by requiring specific criteria to be followed. There are also several additional amendments that would ensure
that the new rules and requirements in the act are clear, practical, and workable. One amendment would clarify that a commercial service does not include services provided by volunteers who receive no compensation in relation to their time or services. Another amendment relates to entirely self-funded campaigns. For these campaigns, which would be up to and including $10,000, a bank account and public disclosure is not required by the candidate. There’s also an amendment that proposes to change the campaign contribution limit to $5,000 per year.
Mr. Speaker, we’re also proposing in this bill that the current provisions requiring that candidates’ surplus trust funds be held by the municipality will not come into effect until December 1, 2011. This amendment would allow time for candidates, municipalities,
and election officials to comply with these new rules. Another amendment I’d like to highlight is that a bank account for contributions from any person other than the candidate, like a corporation, trade union, or employee organization, is only required
if the total amount of the contribution or contributions is greater than $5,000. This amendment will avoid burdensome administrative processes for many candidates.
Lastly, there is an amendment to remove the requirement to have statements on campaigns of over $10,000 audited. In closing, I’d like to encourage all members to support this legislation. I look forward to the discussion that will ensue.
Excerpted from Alberta Hansard
March 23, 2010